These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

357 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11317385)

  • 21. Marginal adaptation and performance of bioactive dental restorative materials in deciduous and young permanent teeth.
    Gjorgievska E; Nicholson JW; Iljovska S; Slipper IJ
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2008; 16(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 19089281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
    Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Two-year clinical performance of a polyacid-modified resin composite and a resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative material.
    Brackett WW; Browning WD; Ross JA; Brackett MG
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(1):12-6. PubMed ID: 11203770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The influence of finishing time on the marginal seal of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and polyacid-modified resin composite.
    Lim CC; Neo J; Yap A
    J Oral Rehabil; 1999 Jan; 26(1):48-52. PubMed ID: 10080324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations.
    Brackett MG; Dib A; Brackett WW; Estrada BE; Reyes AA
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(2):112-6. PubMed ID: 11931132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Clinical evaluation of different adhesive systems for restoring teeth with erosion lesions.
    Federlin M; Thonemann B; Schmalz G; Urlinger T
    Clin Oral Investig; 1998 Jun; 2(2):58-66. PubMed ID: 15490777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Ten-year Clinical Performance of Posterior Resin Composite Restorations.
    Krämer N; Reinelt C; Frankenberger R
    J Adhes Dent; 2015 Aug; 17(5):433-41. PubMed ID: 26525008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial.
    Shi L; Wang X; Zhao Q; Zhang Y; Zhang L; Ren Y; Chen Z
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Interfacial adaptation of a Class II polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite laminate restoration in vivo.
    Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Hörstedt P
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2000 Apr; 58(2):77-84. PubMed ID: 10894429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results.
    Alves dos Santos MP; Luiz RR; Maia LC
    J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):451-9. PubMed ID: 20188783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract) in class III cavities: three-year results.
    Demirci M; Ersev H; Uçok M
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(3):223-30. PubMed ID: 12022451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Marginal adaptation and retention of a glass-ionomer, resin-modified glass-ionomers and a polyacid-modified resin composite in cervical Class-V lesions.
    Gladys S; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P; Vanherle G
    Dent Mater; 1998 Jul; 14(4):294-306. PubMed ID: 10379259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Compomer materials and secondary caries formation.
    Hicks J; García-Godoy F; Milano M; Flaitz C
    Am J Dent; 2000 Oct; 13(5):231-4. PubMed ID: 11764107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The two-year clinical performance of esthetic restorative materials in noncarious cervical lesions.
    Onal B; Pamir T
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2005 Nov; 136(11):1547-55. PubMed ID: 16329418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Compomers as Class II restorations in primary molars.
    Gross LC; Griffen AL; Casamassimo PS
    Pediatr Dent; 2001; 23(1):24-7. PubMed ID: 11242726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results.
    Mendonça JS; Neto RG; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Navarro MF; de Carvalho RM
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 May; 11(3):025-32. PubMed ID: 20461321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies.
    Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H
    J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Retention and marginal adaptation of a compomer placed in non-stress-bearing areas used with the total-etch technique: a 3-year retrospective study.
    Prati C; Chersoni S; Cretti L; Montanari G
    Clin Oral Investig; 1998 Dec; 2(4):168-73. PubMed ID: 10388389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Clinical performance of aesthetic restorative materials in primary teeth according to the FDI criteria.
    Bektas Donmez S; Uysal S; Dolgun A; Turgut MD
    Eur J Paediatr Dent; 2016 Sep; 17(3):202-212. PubMed ID: 27759409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1-year results.
    Perdigão J; Dutra-Corrêa M; Saraceni SH; Ciaramicoli MT; Kiyan VH
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(6):591-601. PubMed ID: 22770485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.